Protestent christians expressed their love by the rampant killing of native americans, who were called not humans, but ‘red indians’, and usurping their lands and destroying their livelihood. This was quite in line with the way Catholic christians in Europe called native cultures ‘pagan’ and killed the natives, who were again, not called humans, but ‘heathens’. Catholic christians also expressed their universal love through Inquisitions in Europe, South America and in other former colonies such as in Goa. They burned women on stakes, calling them not humans, but, witches. Thus they demonstrated that it is very easy to love people without feeling remorse when labelled with an alternate term instead of calling them humans.

Christians also expressed their love in Africa by enslaving the natives, shipping them off to plantations to be made to work like animals, calling them, not humans, but ‘negros’ or ‘niggers’ .

They loved the natives of Australia and New Zealand so much that they killed them, displaced them, enslaved them, took away their small children and de-cultured them, calling them, not humans, but ‘aboriginals’.

Christian love for India was expressed in the rampant plunder of this country. They not only enslaved the indians, plundered the wealth, they also appropriated the scientific advancements made by the indians, used that to develop their industries and economy and called it ‘industrial revolution’. Concurrently, so much love christians had, that they destroyed the education system that produced that scientific knowledge, destroyed the culture that produced that scientific knowledge, deracinated the indians, shipped them off to far off Carribeans and Africas as bonded labourers calling them ‘hindoos’.

Christians loved the Jews and the Gypsies in Europe throughout the centuries so much that christian Nazis, continuing with such love, starved them to skeletons and incinerated them in gas chambers in millions.

Despite all these accomplishments, christians consider themselves full of love of the only true God and want to convert the remaining adherents of native cultures to this version of love. They call it God’s work. They also call such expressions of love as civilising the natives.

If the past is any indicator, how godly is this christian God ? how merciful ? how benevolent ? how loving is this entity ?
To some of the above victims, the entity God may appear indistinguishable from the other entity these christians bandy about, called Satan.

Muslims talking about peace

Since the death of Khadija, the aggrandizing instinct of muslims have been unleashed unbridled upon the world in such a violent manner that it matches that of christian inquisitions, at times even surpassing that. So ‘peaceful’ were the muslims that they enslaved and killed people following native customs calling them ‘kaffirs’, not humans. In the name of their merciful ‘Allah’, these people have been waging ‘jihad’ over a millennium upon human beings. These peaceful people have mercilessly butchered women and children and enslaved them brutally. Their peaceful acts still continue unabated, in India, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Bangladesh, in Indonesia, in Malaysia, in Sudan, in Palestine, in Libya.

To the victims of muslim’s peace campaigns throughout the centuries, the entity ‘Allah’ may seem anything but peaceful or merciful.

Communists talking about liberating the masses

If Cuba and China, let alone Stalinist Russia and Cambodia, are examples of liberating the masses, what would be imprisonment ?

The condition of the states of West Bengal and Kerala, that have repeatedly elected communists to power- the impoverishment, material as well as ethical and cultural, people having to work for capitalists outside those states and send money back home, the violence that underlies these societies becoming a fertile ground for exploitation by subversive ideologues -are indicators of how communists ‘liberate’ the masses in a democracy.

To the beneficiaries of such liberation, liberty may seem indistinguisable from incarceration.

Capitalists talking about environment

The way in which capitalists have rampantly and remorselessly looted the earth and destroyed her sustainability over the past few centuries, causing changes in climate and on the native flora and fauna, all to feed their aggrandizing drive, their new found concerns for environment and their pious endeavours towards ‘reducing carbon emissons’ and bringing in ‘green technology’ without discarding the unbridled greed that caused the damage in the first place, without recognizing that Nature is to be sustained for its own sake, not merely for continuation of human’s consumption levels, belie their claim and their intention.

To people living with Nature in a mutually nurturing way, the capitalists’ effort at greening the planet may seem mere continuation of the selfish project of grabbing yet another opportunity to increase bank balance at the cost of environment and ethics.

Indian liberals talking secularism

Secularism of the indian liberals is to demonstrate cronic intolerance towards bharatiya samskriti and to excessively indulge the relentless attack on indian psyche by the four groups- christians, muslims, communists and capitalists.

To the practitioners of bharatiya samskriti, such liberals may seem like puppets dancing to the tune of western imperialism that sprouts four heads- christianity, islam, communism and capitalism.

Maya

Despite the blatant inconsistencies, majority of people today end up buying the lemon sold by the four headed western imperialism.

These altruistic thoughts were the result of realization by rishis that supreme reality is one and the apparent diversity is a result of perception. This realization inspired them to understand themselves as comprising of purusha and prakriti, integral with the supreme reality; and they nurtured Nature and respected all beings.

Western Worldview

Western worldview is based on thought processes that shaped the aggrandizing behaviour of alexander’s greece, imperial rome, the catholic church and its offshoots- islam and protestant christianity, capitalism, communism, nazism and fascism. This worldview is characterised by fixation on materialistic things. Its roots may extent to the ancient egyptians who built massive tombs and displayed attachment to material objects.

The Contrast

In contrast to bharatiya darshana, western world view is unable to consider life as spiritual. It is perennially fixated on things physical and on material acquisitions.

bharatiya darshana considers supreme reality brahma as pervading the whole creation. Western worldview considers supreme reality as confined to some place apart from this world called ‘heaven’ and entirely dependent on the allegiance offered by the people on earth to feel contented; or they fail to recognise any supreme reality at all, beyond what is perceived by their limited senses.

While bharatiya darshana recognises spirituality as the core of every being, every creation in the world, western worldview denies spirituality in every being in this world, assigning it to an entity out of this world called God or Allah, an entity that threatens ‘eternal damnation’ upon people unless they bow down to it. Or else denies spirituality altogether, both in this world and in every other world, terming it ‘super-natural’, ‘meta-physical’, ‘irrational’ etc.

A Metaphor

Metaphorically, bharatiya darshana inspires and provides opportunity to consider life as a sacred experience and to rise up to spiritual heights using intuitionary wisdom, like a bird rising in air using its wings.
The western worldview on the other hand impels people to behave like processionary caterpillars in their beliefs while wallowing in materialism, like a worm crawling in mud.

The western mind seeks to expand horizontally in the flatworld of materialism while bharatiya darshana inspires growth in a third dimension- the spiritual dimension.

The Question

This poses the question- Can a bird that rises in air dialogue with a worm immersed in mud ?

Answer

It is possible only if the bird stops flying and immmerse itself into the materialistic-mud world of the worm.
But, if the bird does that, it is not flying any more and will not be able to explain to the worm. On the other hand, the bird will have mud sticking on its body that will weigh down and hamper its movement of wings.
Even if the bird joins the worm in materialistic world and dialogues with it, the worm, limited in its flatwordly experience, may not comprehend the experience of flying that the bird talks of, it may misconstrue the message.
Some worms may even seek to devour the bird in their relentless search towards self-aggrandizement.
The case of Jesus was one such, of a bird who got devoured by the aggrandizing imperial rome that later hoisted his skeleton as a divine symbol from spiritual dimension and used that to maliciously brainwash and subjugate millions of people.

At present there are many birds who, through conditioning, have forgotten their wings that if used could take them to spiritual heights, and are instead engaged in crawling in the materialistic mud, competing with worms. Many such birds have, through lack of use, shrivelled their wing muscles.

When such birds exercise their wings, gradually developing their muscles, they may realise that they have the capacity to rise above the materialistic mud world and experience a new dimension.
With such continued exploration of the spiritual dimension, their intuitionary wisdom will gather strength and help them reach further heights. As they continue to do that, the mud sticking on their body, materialistic attachments, will dry out and fall away, making them lighter, feel more free, and able to fly higher.

When the birds start to fly, the worms may get curious. Many of them may discover that they too have budding wings and exercising it, over time, attain heights. Some others who do not have wings may start to introspect. When they emerge from such introspection, like from a cocoon, they may also have acquired wings that could take them to spiritual heights.

When that happens, dialogue between the bird and the worm-turned-fly would be meaningful.
It would be only then that bharatiya samskriti would be understood by the reformed western mind- one that recognises its own spirituality.

.

.

.

.

A clarification:- bharatiya darshana and western worldview are not genetically acquired. They are acquired during the course of life. Upbringing and environs definitely plays a part in consolidating them. But it is quite possible for a person born and brought up in bharata deshaH to have western outlook (in fact most indians do so) while another born and brought up outside acquires bharatiya darshana through spiritual enquiry (although rarely does it happen).

Is it so difficult to see that there is only one specie of homo sapiens in this world?
Is it so difficult to see that Allah in Arabic is same as God in English, Brahma in Sanskrit, Ishwar in Hindi, and so on …

Is it so difficult to see that the blood flowing in your veins is the same group that flows in the veins of a person you consider non-believer, but possibly a different group than that of the person whom you consider a fellow believer?

That in case of requirement of blood for you or your own family member, either now or any time in the future, it is possible that you may not find a matching blood group within the immediate group of your believer kith and kin, but may find it in the body of a non-believer?
Will you then refuse to accept his blood, if he offers it?
Do you think you will get his blood if you had alienated him so much that he is nowhere near you when you need it?

Do you think in the future all your fellow believers will have the same blood group that you will not require any transfusion from a non-believer?

Do you think you can save all the required groups of blood for the future and thus do away with such a need in the future?

Is it so difficult to see that when a non-believer prays to his God, he is praying to the supreme infinite power of this universe, the One you consider to be Allah, whom you consider to possess all the attributes that he also considers Him to posses, only that he calls Him in his native tongue?

Is it so difficult to see that Insan, Man, Admi all mean the same and have the same attributes, abilities?

When will you wake up, fellow traveller of this journey of life that all of us begin alone, crying, and end alone.

—This post is based on comment posted elsewhere in reply to a ‘believer’.—